MovieChat Forums > Psycho III (1986) Discussion > such a drop in quality from the second m...

such a drop in quality from the second movie :(

posted 10 years ago by PyleaPortal
12 replies | jump to latest

Honestly don't think this movie was needed. The whole thing was off.

Plus psycho is better when it revolves around Norman. The side characters were awful

And the score. Wtf did they do to it

[–] michaelsmith30 10 years ago

You're right. Not as good as part II, but the ending of II left us hanging, so I can understand a follow-up. Too bad Jerry Goldsmith didn't compose the score again. There was an MTV music video released in 1986 called Scream of Love. It's based on the movie. It's on YouTube.

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

It's not as good as the previous two...but it still has some quality. The fourth one is the worst with Perkins.

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

Too bad Jerry Goldsmith didn't compose the score again.
___________
I don't mind Carter Burwell's score. It offers a different aural ambience\atmosphere to what Goldsmith did; but the film also has a different style and sense of humor about it. Different writer, cinematographer and of course Perkins directed III. I think Perkins might have given a better performance—he is terrific in II—if he had handed over the directorial reigns to someone else. He was probably too preoccupied with both acting and directing duties. Also, his choice of leading lady in Diana Scarwid, leaves much to be desired. I rate II 8\10 and I would III a 6\10. There is too much contrivance in III and it appears more sluggish and less involving than II, and is 20mins shorter.

[–] DamianGein 10 years ago

While not as good as II , I don't think it was bad. The only thing that bothered me is that Norman looked a lot older. They should have set the movie years later instead of just one month.

Esta es mi firma

[–] SteveResin 10 years ago

I enjoyed it as much as Psycho II. It's ridiculously camp but a cut above most slashers of the period.

--------------------
Duty Now For The Future

[–] dalldorfw 9 years ago

I liked this one a bit better.

"Plus psycho is better when it revolves around Norman. The side characters were awful"

The first one didn't revolve completely around Norman.

[–] SillyGayBoy 9 years ago

I just saw it and it bored my ass off. Psycho 2 stayed interesting throughout and Psycho 3 was a boring retread. The trivia says the jerk guy was originally the killer but the studio rejected that. That is too bad.

[–] ElectricWarlock 8 years ago

I think you could see the influence of the slasher movies of the 1980s. It had a lot more gore and nudity than the previous two. It seemed closer to an '80s slasher movie than the character driven, psychological thrillers that the first two movies were. That isn't a bad thing at all though. I just think you should go in expecting more of a slasher movie than the same style as the first two and you may enjoy it like I did.

[–] Doom 8 years ago

Love 'em both, but prefer Psycho III to Psycho II.

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

[–] fiatlux-1 8 years ago

I liked Part III a lot.
It wasn't the original, but it wasn't SUPPOSED to be. It stood on its own.

I thought it dared to try to be different. Each sequel *matched* the decade it was made in.
Part III was Perkins' directorial debut, and I thought he did more than respectably.

The biggest flaw was, ironically, not Perkins' fault at all. The film studio wanted more violence, and so Perkins was forced to put more blood in the movie.
It would have been MUCH better with subtle violence, yet NO studio ever seems to know this!

The soundtrack was superb, this entry never got the accolades it deserved.

I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

The biggest flaw was, ironically, not Perkins' fault at all. The film studio wanted more violence, and so Perkins was forced to put more blood in the movie.
__________
Personally, I think having the violence the way it was, was a wise decision. What did they add in that wasn't already in the script? The flashbacks? Compared to some films today, it is quite tame: We see a woman with slit wrists in a bloody bathtub; a woman is stabbed repeatedly in phone booth and the way it is edited, I don't think we see the actual knife penetrate flesh—like the original—only blood splatter; and a woman has her throat slashed while sitting on the loo, which is bloody, but latex fake looking. The other violence, is just brutal physical action and not that graphic. There are also some horror scenes, involving a dead corpse. This film needed something to appease the ghouls in the audience, as that is what would have been expected to deliver the goods. PSYCHO II-83', which I think is the superior entry of the sequels, contained graphic violence as well; but was filmed in a different style, that gave it a different impact. The secrets in the sauce.

[–] supermancalculatorruler 8 years ago

Meh, I don't think its THAT much worse. Its not as bad as the drop in quality between this and 4.